The site worked for me at 20:07 on 2015/07/30, about twenty minutes after you posted your message.

Questions about the 2015 Hugo Awards voting should go directly to the 2015 Hugo Awards Administrators, because they are the ones who are actually running the 2015 Hugo Awards. Anything sent to TheHugoAwards.org will simply be forwarded to them. Those of us here at TheHugoAwards.org are not the ones running the current Worldcon’s web site or the Hugo Awards voting at their web site, so we can’t directly do anything about voting issues with the current year’s Awards.

When I finally came around to read all about the controversy which is hovering above the Hugo Awards this year, I couldn’t ignore the feeling of familiar. Then I realized what it reminded me about.. countless marketing attempts of big name companies gone wrong, because the internet hijacked them to troll, i.e. “Mountain Dew Names a New Flavor””and the #1 ending up being “Hitler did nothing wrong”. Of course they had no agenda, other than trolling people, so it isn’t really the same as this years Hugo Awards. Still I couldn’t ignore it.

The internet and right-wing conspiracy nuts and those opposing them have now turned the awards into their private battlefield, their platform, their private joke and feel-good bubble. This is ridiculous, those people from both sites, the sad puppies and the ones opposing them have destroyed the Hugo Awards, and are turning the awards into a political rostrum, distracting from what the awards exclusively should be about. The quality of the books and nothing more.

This is why in my opinion the organizers should think about abolishing the system of popular vote and having a jury instead.

Hello!
Could you recommend literature awards which results are not based on who published the book, the author’s fame, etc. The more I plunge into this field, the more sure I become of the idea that good books remain undiscovered.

There are a massive number of awards in the SF/Fantasy field. The (now moribund) SF AwardsWatch site lists many awards, some of which are still active. However, all systems designed by human beings are likely to have some form of human bias built into them. Juried awards reflect the biases of the jurors. Popularly voted awards of various sorts are subject to biases of the electorate, whether or not there are any specific criteria for qualifying the vote. There are countless number of SF/F reviews and awards in the world, all of which are a reflection of the reviewers and organizers of those awards. There essentially is no way to produce a hermetically sealed, mathematically pure, totally unbiased evaluation system without human bias in the evaluation as subjective as science fiction and fantasy literature.

Why insult nominees? Handing out asterisks was a huge insult. It’s supposed to be an awards ceremony , not a roast. So respect the nominees. Except Vox Day. Pour all the vitriol you like on him, with the excess spilling on JC Wright. But the others were basically innocent bystanders.

Pete, on the assumption it was the first time you’ve watched the Hugos awarded – that wasn’t a roast. You must have missed the part about the most ballots and the largest number of supporting members. People were respectful; it was, outside of the number of No Awards, normal for the ceremony.

I’ve noticed you have Book Editor’s Awards. I need an Editor who might have some knowledge of astrology. It’s a book that’s non-fiction & has gone into a countries politics, medicine & finding the reason for murder

Can you help has there been any editors given a Hugo Award for astrology books & if so how do I find them

The Hugo Awards web site does not offer editor referrals. We only record those editors who are shortlisted and win the Awards. To our knowledge, no editors have received Hugo Awards for a body of work including works on astrology.

Hello, could you add RocketStackRank.com to the list of Third Party Recommendation Sites in the right sidebar? We not only do our own short fiction reviews, but we also include links to recommendations by other reviewers (Lois Tilton at Locus Online, Sam Tomaino at SFRevu, K. Tempest Bradford at io9, and @SFEditorsPicks on Twitter). Our Q&A explains our goals. http://www.rocketstackrank.com/p/qa.html Thank you.

I am a Graduate Student at Montana State University, in Bozeman, Montana. I am looking at possibly doing my thesis project on the intersection of philosophy, science-fiction, and culture in America, framing it through historical methods. Does your organization keep substantial records, transcripts, letters, journals, etc… regarding the award process and the state of science-fiction in general? Specifically, I am looking at the 1950’s and 60’s genre.
Thank you.

Everything we have is on our web site. There are no additional records, nor is there the substantial amount of information you appear to be requesting in your question. We do not maintain libraries, research archives, piles of old papers, etc.

The term “Hugo nominated” no longer has any official meaning. The official term, per the WSFS Constitution, is “finalist,” meaning “appeared on the final ballot.” This sometimes is called being “shortlisted.” It is possible to be “nominated” for a Hugo Award by a single person nominating that work, and therefore WSFS abandoned the word “nominee” and adopted “finalist,” which is less ambiguous. However, until relatively recently, the term “nominee” referred only to those people on the final ballot. We have not yet even cleaned up all such references within this web site.

The use of “Hugo nominated” is now relatively meaningless, given that it only takes a single nomination (even of yourself) to be able to claim to be a “Hugo nominee,” and because it is impossible to verify given that administrative reports of works that did not make the final ballot omit works with fewer than five nominations.

Feel free to point out to people claiming to be “Hugo nominees” that the usage has no real meaning, any more than it means anything to be a “Nobel Prize nominee” given the ease of “nomination” for the Nobel Prize.

You do not “join” the Hugo Award. You cannot “submit” a work for the Hugo Award. Works are not selected by a small jury, but by nominations by the thousands of members of the World Science Fiction Convention who are eligible each year to nominate works. Read our article about Submissions for further detail.

The Hugo Award is not only for works in English. Works published in any language are eligible. If your work was originally published in a language other than English and is then later translated into English, the English-language edition is also eligible for a Hugo Award.

Generally speaking, the 2017 Hugo Awards are for works published in calendar year 2016, including translations into English from other languages.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I’m a retired engineer living in Colorado Springs and am preparing to launch a Science Fiction writing contest for Colorado Springs area school children grades 6 through 12. We have funds for prizes and operations but are looking for sponsors to add prestige to our contest. We would love to add to our literature the Hugo Awards name to give our contest the conspicuous status to attract statewide attention.

By way of this contest we hope to stimulate interest in our youth in careers in science, technology and math. My own background includes working for NASA on the Saturn V launch vehicle and Space Shuttle and on nuclear fusion at ORNL.

The Hugo Awards generally does not endorse other events or contests in this way, primarily because the Awards are managed by a joint committee that covers multiple independent organizations, and getting the level of cooperation necessary to do this would be impractical.

This is why the WSFS Business Meeting decided to change the wording used for the people/works on the final ballot to “Finalists” instead of “Nominees”. You can’t stop anyone calling themselves a “nominee” because they can nominate themselves, but you can laugh more easily at people who call themselves “finalists” when they quite clearly are not.

By the way, there is no “committee”. Unless there is a clear breach of the WSFS service marks, no one but the Business Meeting has the power to do anything like this.

The Best Fan Writer list of finalists includes the name “Susan Wood Glicksohn” as the fourth in the list (“Susan Wood” properly appears second as the co-winner of the award). Checking the award info at the NESFA site suggests that this fourth finalist should actually read “Michael Glicksohn”.

(Were the award pages on this site created by hand, or were they generated from a database? I’m wondering if the error might appear elsewhere.)

Um, sorry about this followup, but I just checked the ISFDB, and that has “Susan Wood Glicksohn” as an actual pseudonym used by Susan Wood, and no entry for Michael Glicksohn. So… was Susan Wood actually nominated under two different names? Or is the ISFDB propagating an error from somewhere else?

Well, now I feel dumb. The ISFDb doesn’t have loose matching, so it didn’t match “Michael Glicksohn” to the entry for “Mike Glicksohn”, Susan Wood’s husband.

But! As best I can tell from their respective ISFdb pages, Susan Wood did not publish anything using the name “Susan Wood Glicksohn” in 1976, and so would presumably not have been eligible to be nominated for a Hugo under that name in 1977, whereas Mike Glicksohn did publish under his name in 1976, and therefore would have been eligible to be nominated. Therefore, it seems likely that what I pointed out as an error probably is an error, and the line should probably read “Mike Glicksohn”.

Also, the links “Do I have to nominate/vote in every category?” and “Do I have to have read or seen everything in a category to nominate?” at the top of page http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq do not link to anything. The latter link should probably link to the question in the body text, and that question should probably be shown in a bigger, bold font, just like the other questions.

I am reaching out to you because I would like to confirm that Sesame Workshop (Sesame Street) won an award for the “Tree Use” episode back in 2011. Can you confirm that please? And if so, where would I be able to find that listing? Is there a website that we can cite?

That production neither won or was a finalist for the Hugo Award for science fiction and fantasy. It is possible that it won an award from the Chicago International Film Festival with a similar name; however, TheHugoAwards.org is the site of the Hugo Awards for achievement in science fiction and fantasy, presented since 1954 by the World Science Fiction Society and presented at the annual World Science Fiction Convention.